Spiral Dynamics

[Black Rose]

Science can make no claims on morals and ethics. only state facts.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Science can make no claims on morals and ethics. only state facts.

That's correct. So since this model has both explicit and implicit moral judgments, it's not really science.

 

[Black Rose]

That's correct. So since this model has both explicit and implicit moral judgments, it's not really science.

It is about cultural stages of development. such as post-modernism being a stage.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

That's correct. So since this model has both explicit and implicit moral judgments, it's not really science.

It is about cultural stages of development. such as post-modernism being a stage.

Yes. It simply takes superficial facts about history and interprets them in light of its own value system and various new-age concepts.

 

[SlipperyQ]

I believe I should point out that I do not aim to present Spiral Dynamics as an absolute truth. I only ask that this idea is entertained. Spiral Dynamics is still just a perspective, but everyone can extract the truth value to be found within.

I think Spiral Dynamics is worth serious consideration because it provides a reasonable and practical explanation for many problems in the world which are convoluted and divisive, based on prior explanations.

I would also like to point out that the motives you presume Spiral Dynamics exhibits are frankly, false. I do not believe myself to be at the top of a hierarchy. No stage in the spiral is "better" or "worse". Every stage is applicable and valid depending on the challenges of the environment. If one is lost in the wilderness and needs to focus on bare survival, then beige is the ideal stage. If one is attempting to solve a complex political issue, yellow would be a more viable mindset.

Let me provide some historical examples which may help you see the value of Spiral Dynamics.

Why is it that religious freedom, women's rights, and racial equality first occured in the Western World? Today, in most societies women are second-class citizens, and Western influence has failed to mitigate this issue. Religion is still the strongest force in society that isn't aroused by survival in the middle East and Africa.

Why is it that when the United States removes an authoritarian regime such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc. Religious Fundamentalists consistently gain popular support and install a new authoritative theocracy? People in this part of the world have difficulty accepting democracy and are consistently more receptive to a theocratic regime. Spiral Dynamics provides the explanation that these people are at stage Blue, therefore they value spiritual leadership and nationhood over freedom, democracy, and capitalism. For people in the Middle East, the most just and fair government is sharia law, because to them it's based on the Truth delivered from Allah.

Why is it that in continents like Africa, there has been very little if any cultural or technological development throughout human history until very recently? The same applies to the Americas and Australia.
Why did the Industrial Revolution occur in Western Countries (England, Belgium, Germany, United States, etc.) and not in China, Africa, or America? Why did the scientific revolution and the enlightenment occur in Western Europe and nowhere else? These ideas were exported from Europe all over the world, but why did Europe attain such success in the past 300 years while other civilizations lagged behind? There are two explanations for this occurence.
The first is that Europeans are genetically superior and have vastly superior intelligence, a theory that is disregarded by most of society today. The second is Spiral Dynamics. Western Europe was the first civilization to reach stage orange, which was due to many different variables from the environment. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond discusses many of these variables.

Spiral Dynamics can even explain the differing viewpoints on this thread.
Nobody can choose their level, it's due to environment and upbringing.
When two people are at different developmental levels, when one points something out the other simply will not see it.
What may be an obvious proposition to one stage may be irrational or even insane to another. But every stage is correct to an extent.

@Serac Your disdain towards religion, "New Agers" and what you consider to be irrational strongly suggests you are Stage Orange, which is not a bad thing, it's the most common stage among English speakers.

From this thread I see Stage 5's arguing with Stage 6 and possibly stage 7 as well. All intelligent individuals with sound reason, but are at different stages.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@SlipperyQ I'm not in this business of trying to put people into these boxes based on whatever silly little ideas some woo-woo crank had in his mind. I'm looking at this from an epistemological perspective, according to which rigorous and scientific principles don't exclude any of the goals described in the green or yellow box or whatever. You can have very strict epistemic/scientific standards yet be very much concerned with love for humanity. Whereas you're telling me: since I am applying certain epistemic principles, I'm in a lower state of consciousness or whatever. Meanwhile, ironically, the people behind this stuff are pretending to apply scientific principles, while in fact they are just doing pseudo-science and ascribing their flawed methods to a higher plane of consciousness.

And regarding the model: if its only use is to "explain" past events while not having any method of validating or corroborating it (e.g. by making repeatable successful forecasts), then this "model" is worth shit.

 

[Pizzabeak]

What's the argument? This is something they show you if you take a psychology class at, say, a community college. Unless there's anything new, I don't get the point.

What you should do is provide more of a guide or some other external sources like a how to. It's basically trying to connect humanity with some higher purpose or a guide to self enlightenment? That would be the science behind it. Well, honestly, it's another way of saying the same thing. Most people aren't ready. America is for people who want to remain steeped in gluttony and give in to their pleasurable urges like sin with no regard for fancy whimsy. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Pizzabeak
No, this isn't what you're shown in psych classes. It's largely been ignored in academia. But still people claim it's science, which takes it from being an exploratory idea to a probable sham, which is one of the reasons people are taking issue.

Another issue is that people who bring up the science issue who have dedicated years of their lives to scientific training, are being dismissed as being less developed. I can basically guarantee you that a lot of the people who subscribe to this stuff somehow managed to "skip" that stage, while giving a pretty solid performance of never having reached it.

@SlipperyQ
I'm pretty sure [either race realism or spiral dynamics] is a false dichotomy. We know societies can advance technologically, but it's a completely different question whether spiral dynamics is a good description of them doing so.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

@Serac

Generally speaking, I’m disappointed with this thread because both the presentation and response could have been better, imo, but that’s in the past and can’t be undone.

Apparently I'm at least "turquoise" according to SD. Woo. It's not particularly meaningful to me. I also doubt the purported rarity of top tier occupants because it's not that difficult to learn to see the world through holarchical glasses (or to teach others), and I dislike the tiered system because even though colors were intentionally chosen over numbers to avoid elevating some levels over others, it doesn't function that way. And to keep up with my trend of complaining, I think Ken Wilber is a false messiah.

I don’t like the idea of applying SD to individuals, but I don’t think it should be that hard to agree that humans follow a developmental pattern, regardless of the model used to explain it. They’re all fucked up in their own way; Anna Karenina. Identifying correlations between them is cool though.

I do like SD on the societal level, because there’s actually a bit of relatively modern data on it instead of painting a pattern around history, but the validity is limited due to lack of replication because we don’t exactly have cages of societies to screw around with, and the implications are limited because of the observer effect: http://evonomics.com/science-predicting-rise-fall-societies-turchin/

I can no longer find a free full text version of "Arise Cliodynamics" so here's two images and a TLDR re: the relevance to spiral dynamics:

The U.S. political violence database: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/a-feature-article-in-nature-on-cliodynamics/

And the inverse relationship between measures of inequality and well-being: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-double-helix-of-inequality-and-well-being/

There are several other correlations that additively contribute to the bigger picture, but I don’t want to assume what you or others want to see and basically spam you.

The latter in particular shows the pattern, which might be more difficult for non-Americans to grasp. Quick and dirty: Stage 3 predominated as "purple" and "red" Native American tribes were overtaken by "red" caucasians. And of course there was that slavery thing. The missing spike is missing because the violence was enacted upon the losers and the victors write the history books. Once the "others" were sufficiently destroyed or contained, blue proliferated, making its first major appearance during the civil war. Blue continued to predominate until WWII, when the military industrial complex shifted the balance and allowed orange to become dominant. Green first appeared in the 60s, and persists today in the form of postmodern social justice complexes and other -isms, but it's dominance is delayed because early green leadership (MLK, Malcolm X, Kennedy 1, Kennedy 2) was assassinated.

I could give more detailed examples, but given the reception, I guess if you're interested, you'll pursue it on your own. I kind of expect the observer effect to either break the cycle, or make the spike in violence much higher. And of course, if the cycle continues as predicted, we have more evidence.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Here is a good Book which also goes where spiral dynamics goes but using a different approach. One of my favorite great works in psychology, and it contains knowledge that I find can be easily connected to Spiral Dynamics.

What's your goal with this thread? And why do you consider a book that essentially describes the foundations of mind control via LSD a favorite great work?

Like, I might have insights and stuff, but that depends on your goals.

 

[QuickTwist]

I am listening to this right now.

There are a few things/positions that he has that kinda contradict each other.

What I don't get is that he speaks of "higher" plains of existence beyond rational, but still presents information in a rational perspective.

Also, if you pay attention to his speech patterns, the point of it is to "excite" the listener. It's because of this pattern of speech that he speaks on that makes people give more credence to his PoV than what his PoV probably deserves.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This is intriguing.

Am I correct in supposing that a significant proportion of "schizophrenics"/"psychotics" are in stage G "A chaotic organism where change is the norm and uncertainty an acceptable state of being"?

If so, would the reason then that they're being forced into mental institutions and drugged up with anti-psychotics and called crazy be that society simply has not yet reached that stage of evolution of consciousness, being that it is, as it were, only entering into stage F?

I'll try and follow up with this and learn more about it.

--

edit:

this link

Academic Paper

doesn't work

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This model is seriously great!

It's similar to the 8 Circuits of Consciousness model, but whereas with that model I struggled to determine which circuit I was up to and when I entered into each one, with this model I've been able to construct a succinct narrative of my life, pinpointing when I transitioned from each stage to the next.

What I've observed through contemplating my own life, is that between each stage there will be a kind of trauma. This may be a specific event, a broader change in life circumstances, or something purely psychological. Basically, the mind becomes acutely aware that the current stage that one is operating at is insufficient, and there will be a subsequent period of feeling lost, as if one's whole world is collapsing (and one's worldview is indeed collapsing, to make way for the new one). (contrast this with the 8 Circuits of Consciousness model, which only has one such "dark night of the soul" - between the 4th and 5th circuits)

I believe I am indeed correct re: my previous post. It's certainly what happened to me. Due to seeking help when I was transitioning from Stage 6 to Stage 7, I became somewhat trapped in the mental health system, and due to the a) unconcentional nature and b) chaotic nature of Stage 7, I was viewed, and still am, as being someone who goes through regular episodes of psychosis.

What the mental health system seems to do in trying to "help" people going through this stage, is to somewhat force them into Stage 4, with the authority to be obeyed being the mental health system itself, in conjunction with legal authority. I think you're seen as having overcome your issues to a degree when you can successfully "transition" into Stage 5, albeit likely to a rather modest degree of success.

So that brings me to my question:

How can someone who is at Stage 7 or above find a stable position in society? The views which are present in the mainstream (up to and including Stage 6) have been transcended, with Stage 7 largely being promoted through underground movements such as Chaos Magick. Is it necessary (or advisable) to try and settle at a lower level which is better accommodated for in society, or are there ways to get around this (I mean, of course there are ways, but what are they?) and find a proper place without sacrificing one's personal development?

Oh, and this whole thing about Stage 7 is basically what I was trying to get across in the past when I suggested that psychosis was, in many cases, not quite a mental illness, but a development of consciousness to the next level, which people fail to understand because they haven't reached it yet. Probably in 100 years or so from now, Stage 7 will be more accepted by the mainstream, and what is today seen as dangerous mentally behaviour will instead be praised as being a higher* form of existence (with the current suppression of such states of being being perhaps seen as backwards and barbaric).

* I am hesitant to call it "higher" per se, but I feel that that word does indicate fairly accurately the nature of what we're here describing

 

[redbaron]

how is psychosis 'higher' - being that it's defined as inability to perceive the different between reality and fantasy?

 

[Reluctantly]

I don't get it. Are we supposed to think that people progress through these stages? Cause it all seems pretty circumstantial, like you can be in many stages at once, depending on what you're doing, your own experiences, and what your mental focus is on.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I can't help but think of the crypt keeper every time I see Ken Wilber.

I don't get it. Are we supposed to think that people progress through these stages? Cause it all seems pretty circumstantial, like you can be in many stages at once, depending on what you're doing, your own experiences, and what your mental focus is on.

Yes, though there's some debate as to how that progression actually happens and what it looks like on the individual level vs the societal level.

If someone has reached a given stage, they're able to access all prior stages, like how in some video games you can go back to earlier levels.

 

[redbaron]

I don't get it. Are we supposed to think that people progress through these stages? Cause it all seems pretty circumstantial, like you can be in many stages at once, depending on what you're doing, your own experiences, and what your mental focus is on.

it's almost like it's bullshit hey

it's such an arbitrary ordering of terms that appeals to people with tendency towards MaGiCaL ThInkinG because it puts all the MAgiCAl ThiNKinG at the top

any system that talks about The Next Step™ is very likely to exist as a means of monetising people's need for external validation

 

[Pizzabeak]

how is psychosis 'higher' - being that it's defined as inability to perceive the different between reality and fantasy?

It's not an inability. You might as well do nothing.

 

[Reluctantly]

it's almost like it's bullshit hey

it's such an arbitrary ordering of terms that appeals to people with tendency towards MaGiCaL ThInkinG because it puts all the MAgiCAl ThiNKinG at the top

any system that talks about The Next Step™ is very likely to exist as a means of monetising people's need for external validation

Yeah, kind of confused, so I'll just give my opinion on this. But I don't think Artsu is talking about classic psychosis if he's referencing "Dark night of the soul". The mental health system in the US isn't very good. They have a tendency to over-medicate and imprison people for acting out, regardless of the reasons or trauma they are dealing with; they don't want you to grow from your trauma, but come back to a normalized baseline of thinking. But I would think magical thinking belongs to stages 1 and 2, along with classical psychosis?

But from my point of view, this whole thing seems to progress through a kind of belief system, starting from basic instincts to believing in supernatural forces to asserting dominance over them to asserting ethical domains instead of having the strong and weak to just trying to make the world better to then just accepting and living in its chaos to dealing with reality in terms of its impermanence. ...maybe. I guess if it is as Lagomorph says

If someone has reached a given stage, they're able to access all prior stages, like how in some video games you can go back to earlier levels.

then it kind of makes sense as each next stage deals with some kind of breakdown of the previous one. Seems like thinking in terms of chaos is the goal though in the end. Although sounds very buddhist (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

So, I may have been looking at this system in a way that wasn't inherently what the system was talking about, though I'm sure there'd be some level of overlap. So, I've lost my enthusiasm for this model of thought, but I did get something out of it and I think my perspective stands on its own.

how is psychosis 'higher' - being that it's defined as inability to perceive the different between reality and fantasy?

Ok, well I'll run with your definition... the thing about being unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy, i.e. the lines between the psychological and the physical become blurred, this could be perceived as a cognitive development because prior to what I would term the awakening, fantasy did not exist on this level. The mind is receiving a level of stimulation of such strength that life is viewed through a series of new lenses. The person lives with one foot in this reality, and one foot in an alternate reality, and so experiences a kind of surrealness which leads to a) profound experiences, and b) deep learning. Think of it as being similar to drugs (hallucinogens). When tripping, the lines between the psychological and the physical become blurred, just like with psychosis, and I assume you're familiar with the purported benefits of appropriate hallucinogen use. And hallucinogens, are as we know, widely outlawed by the government. Both psychosis and hallucinogens get one in more intimate touch with one's unconscious, and there seems to be a general fear of this from authorities.

Now, I'm not necessarily speaking about psychosis in general, but rather the psychosis that I personally experienced, and those who have a similar experience. Psychosis has been alternately termed a "spiritual emergence/emergency", and you can read what has been written on that topic with a simple google search, but I'll post this quote to finish:

Schizophrenia in fact is not a disease or ‘mental illness’, nor is it a hopeless condition. Schizophrenia is a brilliant condition… a personal ‘story’ which involves a natural and temporary self-organizing transformative process or crisis of transformation, a ‘psychospiritual crisis’ now known as ‘spiritual emergency’ . ‘Spiritual emergency’ is the term coined by psychiatrist Stanislav Grof to refer to the self-healing process which involves dissolution and removal of illusions and false beliefs which originate in the programming of social conditioning. This gives rise to aberrant thought complexes which prevent the person from making accurate evaluations for appropriate decision-making for effective social adaptation. In a period of spiritual emergency, the person instinctively surrenders to a spontaneous organismic process involving the temporary separation of thought and emotion (‘ego-loss’) which is necessary for the reassessment of their thoughts without having to deal with the emotional implications. The person undergoes a series of varying stages or ‘episodes’ and eventually learns to grow beyond fear based ego-consciousness, beyond cultural conditioning and the expectations of others to a higher consciousness state and the new level of awareness characteristic of self- transcendence or ‘ego-transcendence’. The state of ego-transcendence is characterized by an inner sense of emotional liberation which purifies and sharpens moral consciousness or ‘rational conscience’ … and therefore results in clarity and an accurate perception of reality… intuitive understanding or ‘intuition’.

Human intuition allows for the discovery of ideas and behaviors which increase the effectiveness of social adaptability… ‘Creativite intelligence’ is the defining characteristic of the human psyche or human personality i.e. ‘human nature’.

http://www.grof-holotropic-breathwork.net/profiles/blogs/socalled-schizophrenia-as

 

[redbaron]

When tripping, the lines between the psychological and the physical become blurred, just like with psychosis, and I assume you're familiar with the purported benefits of appropriate hallucinogen use. And hallucinogens, are as we know, widely outlawed by the government. Both psychosis and hallucinogens get one in more intimate touch with one's unconscious, and there seems to be a general fear of this from authorities.

i've taken hallucinogens yes

but 'benefits' is stretching it a bit

government ruling on these things seems to stem a lot more from the fact that the drugs are very easy to use inappropriately and that in a lot of cases, that's what happens and the consequences are severe. we can argue that the government overreacts to this, but i really don't think there's anyone in a position of power thinking that by denying people hallucinogens, they're preventing people from getting into deeper touch with their unconscious and thereby (it seems this is being implied) maintaining power

they're over-protective and whenever i speak to people with strong opinions on why drugs are bad, that's been their reasoning. i don't see any reason to believe it's malicious as opposed to misguidedly protective

~

and no, schizophrenia is not brilliant. people can and do succeed in spite of it, but it's not 'brilliant'

~

people talk about 'undoing your social programming' as if this idea in itself isn't one they've received from a social connection to peers who are all about 'undoing your social programming'

it's just acculturation to a group that eschews typical patterns of socialisation, in favour of new ones. you can make the argument that it's a better form of socialisation, but you aren't 'undoing social programming' - you're just replacing it with a new one

if you interact with peers and people, if you read their works and opinions, if you socialise on the internet - you are being socially programmed. you can choose how and what you let yourself be acculturated to, and i think everyone should. but it's a misnomer to label it as diverging from socialisation entirely

 

[Black Rose]

There are different ways of seeing the world. That our culture embeds in us. Most of us follow it without question and think it is the only way to see the world. But a shift can happen where we see things differently. Eventually, it is possible to view things in different ways simultaneously. Culture evolves.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

i don't see any reason to believe it's malicious as opposed to misguidedly protective

Yeah, there's a saying that goes something like "if you're not sure if something is incompetence or conspiracy, it's most likely incompetence". But, ya know, as a schizo it's far too tempting to claim "CONSPIRACY!!1".

and no, schizophrenia is not brilliant. people can and do succeed in spite of it, but it's not 'brilliant'

I'm almost certain that my psychotic experiences have, for the most part, been highly beneficial to me. However, I'm not sure that I know how to demonstrate this to other people. It might be a while before I'm able to.

 

[redbaron]

Yeah, there's a saying that goes something like "if you're not sure if something is incompetence or conspiracy, it's most likely incompetence". But, ya know, as a schizo it's far too tempting to claim "CONSPIRACY!!1".

I'm almost certain that my psychotic experiences have, for the most part, been highly beneficial to me. However, I'm not sure that I know how to demonstrate this to other people. It might be a while before I'm able to.

even if i'm sceptical of such a claim, i'm fine with that sort of assertion since it's from the perspective of personal experience. conflating it to schizophrenia generally seems spurious though.

it's good that you don't find the disease debilitating or as obstructive to your life as it can often be for others

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

conflating it to schizophrenia generally seems spurious though.

Well, as I said, I think it applies to a subset of the population of those who experience psychosis. I doubt my assessment of my experiences wouldn't generalise to some significant number of others, especially given things like the spiritual emergence/emergency paradigm, which seems to paint the "disease" in a positive light (to those of whom that categorisation applies), as a kind of transformative and healing process.

 

[redbaron]

i think that a lot of people who experience mental illnesses often resort to rationalizing their problems in a positive light as a coping mechanism, which is something you can only really assess case by case - but the majority of the time i hear that kind of assessment from someone diagnosed with a severe mental illness, it seems to be the case

 

[Pizzabeak]

When tripping, the lines between the psychological and the physical become blurred, just like with psychosis, and I assume you're familiar with the purported benefits of appropriate hallucinogen use. And hallucinogens, are as we know, widely outlawed by the government. Both psychosis and hallucinogens get one in more intimate touch with one's unconscious, and there seems to be a general fear of this from authorities.

i've taken hallucinogens yes

but 'benefits' is stretching it a bit

government ruling on these things seems to stem a lot more from the fact that the drugs are very easy to use inappropriately and that in a lot of cases, that's what happens and the consequences are severe. we can argue that the government overreacts to this, but i really don't think there's anyone in a position of power thinking that by denying people hallucinogens, they're preventing people from getting into deeper touch with their unconscious and thereby (it seems this is being implied) maintaining power

they're over-protective and whenever i speak to people with strong opinions on why drugs are bad, that's been their reasoning. i don't see any reason to believe it's malicious as opposed to misguidedly protective

~

and no, schizophrenia is not brilliant. people can and do succeed in spite of it, but it's not 'brilliant'

~

people talk about 'undoing your social programming' as if this idea in itself isn't one they've received from a social connection to peers who are all about 'undoing your social programming'

it's just acculturation to a group that eschews typical patterns of socialisation, in favour of new ones. you can make the argument that it's a better form of socialisation, but you aren't 'undoing social programming' - you're just replacing it with a new one

if you interact with peers and people, if you read their works and opinions, if you socialise on the internet - you are being socially programmed. you can choose how and what you let yourself be acculturated to, and i think everyone should. but it's a misnomer to label it as diverging from socialisation entirely

You may have done "hallucinogens" (correct term is actually Psychedelic or Entheogen, thank you very much) but you clearly don't know shit. You didn't even read the link. You've no idea the history or potential of them. You're too scared, reasonably enough, to do the work. So just stay where you are boy and don't mess around with things you don't know about.

Reality could be a simulation. LSD causes hysteria in those who haven't tried it. What, so you tried low doses once or twice? Doesn't seem like much in a lifetime of worshipping it.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I wonder what proportion of problems associated with those with mental illness are due to medication?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933815300559

https://journals.lww.com/jonmd/page...=2007&issue=05000&article=00007&type=abstract

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I wonder what proportion of problems associated with those with mental illness are due to medication?

The meds suck. It's made worse by the fact that for some people (e.g. myself) the medication is legally forced, so that if the person refuses to be medicated they'll be put in a psych ward and made to take the meds anyway.

I built up so much internal rage over it last year that eventually the anger was replaced with depression and I felt defeated and started waking up at 3am or so every morning, and that's still going on.

I'd like to be able to convince the mental health workers that what they're doing is totally unnecessary and harmful, but I don't know that there's any reasonable way to get it through to them.

I think a person is seen as being delusional for thinking that the meds are bad for them, but with studies like that, and the personal experience of being on them, it seems like quite a reasonable choice to make.

i think that a lot of people who experience mental illnesses often resort to rationalizing their problems in a positive light as a coping mechanism, which is something you can only really assess case by case - but the majority of the time i hear that kind of assessment from someone diagnosed with a severe mental illness, it seems to be the case

I've certainly considered that that may be the case with me, but I mean, with models of thought like the spiritual emergency thing, which is made by people studying mental illness, not necessarily those going through it, it does seem reasonable to me to paint things in a positive light (although I do acknowledge some negative aspects that go along with it).

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Hey. Pizzabeak.
Can it.
If you want to participate in discourse, then participate.
Don't act like a toddler.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Hey. Pizzabeak.
Can it.
If you want to participate in discourse, then participate.
Don't act like a toddler.

Plz explain. I don't necessarily want to talk about it more, just want to know what you mean. I didn't do anything, was just trying to participate in discussion - and I will. I just want to do a good job.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I believe I should point out that I do not aim to present Spiral Dynamics as an absolute truth. I only ask that this idea is entertained. Spiral Dynamics is still just a perspective, but everyone can extract the truth value to be found within.

I think Spiral Dynamics is worth serious consideration because it provides a reasonable and practical explanation for many problems in the world which are convoluted and divisive, based on prior explanations.

I would also like to point out that the motives you presume Spiral Dynamics exhibits are frankly, false. I do not believe myself to be at the top of a hierarchy. No stage in the spiral is "better" or "worse". Every stage is applicable and valid depending on the challenges of the environment. If one is lost in the wilderness and needs to focus on bare survival, then beige is the ideal stage. If one is attempting to solve a complex political issue, yellow would be a more viable mindset.

Let me provide some historical examples which may help you see the value of Spiral Dynamics.

Why is it that religious freedom, women's rights, and racial equality first occured in the Western World? Today, in most societies women are second-class citizens, and Western influence has failed to mitigate this issue. Religion is still the strongest force in society that isn't aroused by survival in the middle East and Africa.

Why is it that when the United States removes an authoritarian regime such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc. Religious Fundamentalists consistently gain popular support and install a new authoritative theocracy? People in this part of the world have difficulty accepting democracy and are consistently more receptive to a theocratic regime. Spiral Dynamics provides the explanation that these people are at stage Blue, therefore they value spiritual leadership and nationhood over freedom, democracy, and capitalism. For people in the Middle East, the most just and fair government is sharia law, because to them it's based on the Truth delivered from Allah.

Why is it that in continents like Africa, there has been very little if any cultural or technological development throughout human history until very recently? The same applies to the Americas and Australia.
Why did the Industrial Revolution occur in Western Countries (England, Belgium, Germany, United States, etc.) and not in China, Africa, or America? Why did the scientific revolution and the enlightenment occur in Western Europe and nowhere else? These ideas were exported from Europe all over the world, but why did Europe attain such success in the past 300 years while other civilizations lagged behind? There are two explanations for this occurence.
The first is that Europeans are genetically superior and have vastly superior intelligence, a theory that is disregarded by most of society today. The second is Spiral Dynamics. Western Europe was the first civilization to reach stage orange, which was due to many different variables from the environment. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond discusses many of these variables.

Spiral Dynamics can even explain the differing viewpoints on this thread.
Nobody can choose their level, it's due to environment and upbringing.
When two people are at different developmental levels, when one points something out the other simply will not see it.
What may be an obvious proposition to one stage may be irrational or even insane to another. But every stage is correct to an extent.

@Serac Your disdain towards religion, "New Agers" and what you consider to be irrational strongly suggests you are Stage Orange, which is not a bad thing, it's the most common stage among English speakers.

From this thread I see Stage 5's arguing with Stage 6 and possibly stage 7 as well. All intelligent individuals with sound reason, but are at different stages.

Spiral dynamics is used to trace the evolution of consciousness through history. Since the 60's, the leading frontiers of consciousness has been defined by "post modernism" and "individualism"; etc, as a result. So the modern world could want inclusion and diversity as well as relativism but can also tend toward the other extreme on the far right; i.e. "Donald Trump" and what the "Trumpocalypse" represents. So it's not just being open to new experiences, which could all segue into a new revolution.

There should be a threshold of some sort. I've been noticing this for a while - the longer you wait, the harder it could be to do something, all variables considered, "luck" included, which is related to time and chance. Similarly, since the universe is a mathematical fractal existence, the longer we wait to save the planet the harder or more impossible it will be, so that's why it's cool to focus on global warming and climate change (with ocean acidification as it absorbs all the excess CO2). So it's our chance for a "global revolution", a continuation of the failed counterculture of the 60's. So it's like a "Möbius strip" with the future reaching back into the past while the past goes to the future, and they'll eventually reach each other after a while.

It's about all the crises these days. It isn't just a form of wishful thinking or to be cool. This is something Freud predicted. Don't hate the player, hate the game, then. It isn't about being "N". It's every bit as radical as you'd probably hope. I don't think anyone is really looking forward to the future of human kind because no matter how hard you'll deny it with your intellect, you're still anchored here to the nostalgia or physical sensations. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, then watch it again. Right now the universe is described using Einstein's relativity, which means it's all "hyper realistic" as far as we can understand it according to the laws of physics, and quantum physics.

 

[Hadoblado]

You may have done "hallucinogens" (correct term is actually Psychedelic or Entheogen, thank you very much) but you clearly don't know shit. You didn't even read the link. You've no idea the history or potential of them. You're too scared, reasonably enough, to do the work. So just stay where you are boy and don't mess around with things you don't know about.

Reality could be a simulation. LSD causes hysteria in those who haven't tried it. What, so you tried low doses once or twice? Doesn't seem like much in a lifetime of worshipping it.

We just don't need the internet tough guy act. Especially when you're pulling rank on RB, who I happen to know is a Navy Seal.

 

[redbaron]

yeah that sucks artsu, i don't really think forced medication is reasonable unless people's lives or well-being is at risk. and even then it should be re-evaluated regularly

i'm not unreceptive to the idea that people who experience a mental illness grants them a unique perspective. by the nature of many of them, that's a given. different doesn't necessarily have to mean impaired or improved, but it does seem that the common theme of mental illness is that certain aspects will always be impaired. sometimes it's a trade-off and indicative of greater aptitude for specific things and difficulty with others (aspergers for e.g.)

i think it's intellectually dishonest to label a trade-off (best case scenario) as 'brilliant' on anything less than a case-by-case basis. and even then it's not really the brilliance of the illness, it's the brilliance of the individual with the illness. i don't think it's correct to equate the two

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

yeah that sucks artsu, i don't really think forced medication is reasonable unless people's lives or well-being is at risk. and even then it should be re-evaluated regularly

Thanks. I agree.

i'm not unreceptive to the idea that people who experience a mental illness grants them a unique perspective. by the nature of many of them, that's a given. different doesn't necessarily have to mean impaired or improved, but it does seem that the common theme of mental illness is that certain aspects will always be impaired. sometimes it's a trade-off and indicative of greater aptitude for specific things and difficulty with others (aspergers for e.g.)

For me, I view it as an expanded perspective. Every experience I had (not sure about literally every, but generally) while psychotic was valuable in itself and also expanded my experience set to know more about how myself, people, the world function. I think I would have arrived at perhaps similar realisations anyway, but going through psychologically intense experiences helped with that.

Yeah, it is a trade off though. I traded experimental behaviours for social normalcy, for instance, and a lot of that I regret, perhaps because I'm no longer in the mindset I was in when I did or said certain things. And as profound as it is to experience oneself as if one were realising one's destiny as some kind of prophet, doing so inflated my sense of self-importance and became, I think, very blasphemous at times. But at the time at least, and still today to a significant degree, the trade off seemed worth it.

There are aspects, too, of the mental health system that I do agree with. For example, at times I had caused so much conflict within my family (because everyone else just didn't get it, man!) that having a break from life via detainment in an institution was probably beneficial. As "next-level" as I thought my thinking was, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to go about expressing that. But being forced to take meds whether I'm going through that or not (I go through "episodes" which typically last a few weeks and then I return to normalcy) seems far too controlling for my liking - it goes against my understanding and has inflicted much unneeded suffering on me.

i think it's intellectually dishonest to label a trade-off (best case scenario) as 'brilliant' on anything less than a case-by-case basis. and even then it's not really the brilliance of the illness, it's the brilliance of the individual with the illness. i don't think it's correct to equate the two

Yeah I don't necessarily agree 100% with that quote, but the point is that it's a perspective that's out there. There are differing views from "debilitating and dangerous" to "brilliant" and there is truth to both sides, but ultimately the condition is not understood well enough to make any conclusive claims.

It would definitely help to have people who have gone through similar things be there to help people going through it, rather than the typical story of going it alone with resistance from the mental health system, to believing the whole thing was misguided and going with the mental health system (not that the mental health system is unified in its perspectives, but I just use that term for lack of a better term).

I'm convinced that these experiences are at least potentially beneficial, but generally not handled correctly, due to the way that the altered states of consciousness puts a person at odds with the general community. Coming into contact with other people going through similar experiences can help, but even that can turn into a game of fueling each other's destructive tendencies somewhat.


Regarding this stages thing, I probably was mistaken in labelling these experiences as "Stage 7" (if @SlipperyQ returns he may be able to shed some light on the issue) but I do believe that in the not-too-distant future, these sorts of experiences will be better integrated with society.

One has only to look at the banned TED talks to see where things are at at the moment. I recall a banned talk about remote viewing, and another to do with drug use, that definitely are along the lines of what I'm talking about, and they're probably banned because they're too controversial for the majority of the population at this point. This will inevitably, I think, change in this century.